Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox Android now supports Tampermonkey

support.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 301 posts

Re: Firefox Android now supports Tampermonkey

#261

Post by seanw444 »

Laaas wrote: post #203
seanw444 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the whole point was that there wasn't supposed to be any money in building it. That's why Mozilla is a nonprofit (in theory at least). Originally the idea was that enough companies and individuals would donate to support its development as a common interest, because obviously people want a good private browser, right? Now the status quo has shifted to a big corporation making money off of peoples' browsing habit…

Much in this world would be better if we donated to what ought be a public service. If browser vendors didn't have to chase profits, perhaps they wouldn't be so user-hostile, and the same principle applies to most software I'd say. That we don't have a world where this is possible is in my opinion both a cultural and political failure. What if every person on HN gave 1% of their income to various open source projects…

That's my opinion. We need more of a culture of giving back. I dislike proprietary software, but I have no problem paying for software.

For example: there are several apps on F-Droid that give you full functionality (even if there is a paywall for those features on the Play Store version), and all they do is say "hey, this took my time to develop, and I'd appreciate if you could throw some bucks my way." I enjoy contributing more than what they'd charge with a paywall in those cases.

Re: Firefox Android now supports Tampermonkey

#262

Post by sciurus »

pxc wrote: post #206
HideousKojima wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean because five unelected judges decided

That's a good point— gay rights are pretty precariously situated and it seems a bit premature to celebrate their status as set in stone at this point. But Democrats who run in elections and appoint judges seem to generally like being able to point to the courts as a risk, and show little interest in legally bolstering civil rights when they have the power to, so it'll probably stay as it is... until it doesn't, just…

Sounds like you may have missed some developments, like the Respect for Marriage Act in passed in 2022.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-congress-expected-pass-b...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404

Re: Firefox Android now supports Tampermonkey

#263

Post by wizzwizz4 »

jraph wrote: post #260
themaninthedark wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Allowing everything to accommodate the preferences of every person is not neutral. What do you mean that is not neutral? Not being neural would be either forcing everyone to get meat with their meals or not allowing people to get meat with their meals. By allowing choice you are taking a neutral path.

> By allowing choice you are taking a neutral path. By deciding to serve meat to people who want it, you already decided that the necessary meat production is okay enough that your org will endorse it, which is not consensual. Many vegetarian people stopped eating meat not for their own comfort and pleasure, but because they actually think meat is not okay (for environmental reasons, for the animal suffering, or what…

Well said, but one of your examples is not quite like the others:

> Is [singular they] neutral, or is it pushing fancy new pronouns that break English and don't sound natural?

Singular “they” is actually the traditional English approach. "Neutral he" is a neo-Latinate prescriptivism: it was relatively obscure until Victorian-era schooling¹ drummed these Rules of English Grammar into everybody's heads.² Even people who swear by singular “they” being ungrammatical usually use it idiomatically, because it's so baked in to the language: it wasn't proscribed for long enough to actually fall out of use.

Neopronouns are a better example: for some people, the class of English pronouns is closed, but for other people it's not. (Or, you could just set the clock back a couple hundred years, and use "neutral he" as your example.)

There's currently a Stack Exchange Hot Network Question on this topic: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/46123/how-di...

¹: Contemporaneous with the romantic movement, which gave us the Cult of the Bard. A man who, like his contemporaries, used singular 'they' in his writing.

²: See also: “to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before” (Douglas Adams). Totally kosher in the 14th century, but the same kinds of people who gave us “scissors” (an atrocious spelling, rivalling "cysowres" in its arbitrarity! What was wrong with "sisours"?) decided that splitting infinitives was ungrammatical. This has a much longer history of rejection (comparable with the duration of the transatlantic slave trade, encompassing the transition betwixt Englis and EMnE, and long enough for the construction to actually disappear outside poetry), so it would probably work as an example, too.

Re: Firefox Android now supports Tampermonkey

#264

Post by OkayPhysicist »

Manfred wrote: post #115
dkbrk wrote: post #110

I don't understand why Mozilla artificially limits what addons can be used on android. I've been using Tampermonkey on android for years, and it worked fine, just like other addons that don't happen to have yet been blessed so that users are granted the privilege of being able to choose to install them. For reference, to work around mozilla's artificial restrictions, you have to use nightly. Once you activate the deb…

It would be good if they explained this in their documentation. But I think you summed it up in your own message: > […] you can either have a browser that doesn't catastrophically break every few updates; or you can have the freedom to install whatever addons you like […] I think they don't want malicious and abandoned extensions to taint the Firefox experience. Users will only see "Firefox is broken" and not realize…

There are only like 15 of us using Firefox mobile. It is safe to say that if you are using Firefox mobile, you are technically savvy enough to go "Ah, I installed some extensions and now Firefox crashes a lot".

Let extensions claim whether they work on mobile or not, and open the flood gates.

Re: Firefox Android now supports Tampermonkey

#265

Post by jhvkjhk »

mg wrote: post #232
jhvkjhk wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do bookmarklets still work on iOS? I wanted to try them but I found this post: > Apple no longer allows running JavaScript in either the Mobile Safari address bar or as a mobile Safari bookmark. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/253547618

Yes, they work on iOS. Most browsers don't allow JavaScript in the address bar anymore. But in bookmarks, all browsers allow it.

Thank you, I will start collecting bookmarks!

Re: Firefox Android now supports Tampermonkey

#266

Post by cookie_monsta »

account-5 wrote: post #222

I love bookmarklets, use them all the time. Could never work out how to get started with userscripts. Any good guides about?

Don't know about good ones - I just kind of jumped in and started figuring it out. This seems to be a fairly complete guide at first glance:

https://openuserjs.org/about/Userscript-Beginners-HOWTO

Re: Firefox Android now supports Tampermonkey

#267

Post by cookie_monsta »

medstrom wrote: post #132
cookie_monsta wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would never use somebody else's userscript - that just seems like asking for trouble

You're using others' scripts from the firmware up all the way to the lite comment input box on HN, and you have just as much reason to trust any piece of that gigantic stack as you do a *Monkey script.

You might be right, but I trust random webpages to be sandboxed by the browser and the rest of the stack to be kept in line by reputational concern or peer vetting. Using some dude's userscript that I found online doesn't have any of those guardrails.

Re: Firefox Android now supports Tampermonkey

#268

Post by jeroenhd »

Zak wrote: post #236
jeroenhd wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use some addons that weren't whitelisted trough the addon collection trick. Many addons plain don't work. The mobile browser doesn't have the UI these addons rely on and maybe there's some API coverage missing. I considered this a fair reason when the rewrite was released, you could still use the old Firefox for a while. But then time passed and nothing changed. It's clear the Fenix devs don't have the capacity or…

There's no incentive for addon developers to fix the experience because only a tiny fraction of Firefox users will jump through the hoops to run them. It seems to me like Mozilla is actively trying to prevent there from being an addon ecosystem for the mobile version, and I do not understand their motivation.

I don't think addon devs can be blamed. They're presented with an API that's supposed to be available in almost every browser available, and on Android (and probably eventually iOS) it's just not.

Re: Firefox Android now supports Tampermonkey

#270

Post by naasking »

jraph wrote: post #177
mozman wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there or has there ever been any evidence that Brendan did not separate his personal views from professional views?

He might have separated his personal views from his professional views. He probably did, actually. But I don't think it matters. People still didn't like it. His right to have these views, their right too. It would only have been worse if he hadn't. The world is not neutral, organizations neither.

> People still didn't like it. His right to have these views, their right too.

Yes, the question here is who mixed their personal right to their views with their professional responsibilities. If Eich didn't, then it seems clear that everyone at Mozilla who objected to his appointment did. That wasn't the conversation that took place though.

The "professional responsibilities" in this case was being a good steward for Mozilla's products and the vision of products that preserved digital rights for its users. Not clear what this had to do with civil rights like gay marriage.

Post reply on HN